World Cup of Hockey 2016 - All Purpose Thread

tim1_2 wrote:I don't want Senators playing in this tourney and neither should any fan.  It's a recipe for disaster.

But I want every one to #LikeMyTeam.

tim1_2 wrote:I don't want Senators playing in this tourney and neither should any fan.  It's a recipe for disaster.

I agree, this could cost other teams dearly, especially the way some of the games have been going. We're likely going to see a couple of injuries and quite a few players come out of it with some painful bumps and bruises to start the season on.
Will likely work to our advantage.

What's everyone's thoughts on the advertising on world cup jerseys? I don't mind the SAP logo on the shoulder, probably would be OK if they limited advertising to just that.

It's a slippery slope, IMO. They need to set down hard and fast rules, identify specific areas where ads are allowed and also specific areas where hockey-related stuff has to go -- including players, boards, ice, glass, etc.

I've done a complete 180 on advertising on jerseys. Not that I want it to go the way it has in Europe where it's just a logo on The Jersey but i think It would be fine if The NHL allowed for 2 or 3 specific spots on the jerseys to advertise. With certain teams struggling to stay afloat you have to think that adding another revenue stream would be good for them and that includes the sens. Yeah it's not as great when you're buying jerseys but whatever. European hockey leagues have lived with it for a while now I say it's about time we stop looking at it like it's not something that we should allow. Bottom line is teams need the money. If it makes the difference between being a cap team and not being a budget team then why not.

My only worry is that over a short time this would just increase the salary cap and we'd be back to square one. Probably something to consider for the next CBA where there are provisions for teams to keep revenue in the players escrow. Limiting contract length has helped that but maybe there's something more to do if some teams are still not making it.

Advertising on jerseys can Diddle right off. If teams need that revenue to stay afloat, then they shouldn't be there to begin with.

Don't worry, we'll have another lockout soon. I don't think the 50/50 will ever get changed back, but changes to the HRR definition will almost certainly need to be made. For instance, the league should mandate a certain percentage of the revenues should be placed in an arena up-keep fund and that amount should be taken off the top before the 50/50 split is calculated. Right now the owners are providing everything: arena to play in, equipment to play with, accommodation and meals on the road (5* hotels and business class), physical therapy, special food prep, training facilities, etc. Since the team/league mandates the players dress code when showing up to games I would not be surprised if the team pays for their suits (sure, they may only pay for one outfit, but still). Building and maintaining the arena is a huge expense and the players just expect the owners to pay for it out of their profits. Well guess what, most of the clubs don't have profits, that's why you have arenas built with public funds in most places. I think this (re-definition of HRR) will be a huge part of the next CBA, and we *will* have a lockout, and the players *will* lose again (if you can call the current situation a loss).

Ouch.  https://t.co/t3hO0wv5L7

— Darren Dreger (@DarrenDreger) September 18, 2016

Ouch, indeed.

EDIT: Embedding a tweet which retweets another tweet doesn't work that well. Dreger is retweeting Mike Modano's twee that says just give the World Cup to Canada now and everyone can have a week off before camp starts.

wprager wrote:Don't worry, we'll have another lockout soon.  I don't think the 50/50 will ever get changed back, but changes to the HRR definition will almost certainly need to be made.  For instance, the league should mandate a certain percentage of the revenues should be placed in an arena up-keep fund and that amount should be taken off the top before the 50/50 split is calculated.  Right now the owners are providing everything: arena to play in, equipment to play with, accommodation and meals on the road (5* hotels and business class), physical therapy, special food prep, training facilities, etc.  Since the team/league mandates the players dress code when showing up to games I would not be surprised if the team pays for their suits (sure, they may only pay for one outfit, but still).  Building and maintaining the arena is a huge expense and the players just expect the owners to pay for it out of their profits.  Well guess what, most of the clubs don't have profits, that's why you have arenas built with public funds in most places.  I think this (re-definition of HRR) will be a huge part of the next CBA, and we *will* have a lockout, and the players *will* lose again (if you can call the current situation a loss).

All those things are the cost of doing business, with the exception of the things you made up. If you work at a grocery store, do you have to pay for building upkeep? The grocery store is a huge expense. Do you really expect the owners to pay for it out of their profits?

Also, you're out to lunch if you think the league pays for their suits. Where do you get that from? I feel like you pulled this whole post out of your  .

I'm looking back on the fact that people are saying gallager or galchenyuk being part of the World Cup and not stone, I think it's great. Had stone been part of the teams we'd have an uphill battle with teams keeping him on a lookout but this way he fois a little under the radar for another little while. By th olympics he'll be under everyone's radar. For now he can demolish a few teams this year!

spader wrote:
All those things are the cost of doing business, with the exception of the things you made up. If you work at a grocery store, do you have to pay for building upkeep? The grocery store is a huge expense. Do you really expect the owners to pay for it out of their profits?

Also, you're out to lunch if you think the league pays for their suits. Where do you get that from? I feel like you pulled this whole post out of your  .

There's really no need to get rude, is there? What I said was that I wouldn't be surprised if they paid for one suit. NHL hockey players get way more benefits than most "employees". Nobody I know gets 50% of revenues (not profits, *revenues*). Partners at law firms share in the profits, but this group of "employees" get 50% of the *revenues*. It's revenues, man.

Second, they have it built into the CBA that they stay at 5-star hotels. I can certainly understand business class travel because a lot of them are pretty big guys and the standard seats aren't very accommodating. But back before they had the Brookstreet hotel, teams used to have to stay downtown because the Holiday Inn Express (which was good enough for Cher when she was here) was only a 4-start hotel. In a lot of cases they get to their hotel room late at night and stay until after their afternoon nap. Absolutely no need for this luxury. Would make a lot more sense to prefer a hotel because of its proximity to the arena or practice facility, rather than the extra star. And the owners have to pay for this extra expense out of their 50%.

As for arena up-keep, many teams now lease the arena from the city, which pays for it with public funds. So some owners aren't paying for upkeep (at least not directly).

Bottom line, we *are* heading to another lockout. The pendulum has swung way too far the other way. The league is doing well as a whole, but too many teams are struggling. And the rich owners don't want their profits to be reduced to pay for the weak sisters. Meanwhile, the NHLPA absolutely wants to have 32 teams in the league as the number of players is hard-limited by this number. So, you want 32 teams, we want to keep our profits. The owners did very well for themselves when there were only the Original Six. The players have benefited from expansion significantly more than (some of the) owners.

Will the new CBA do 50/50 on profits only? I doubt that very much. Will the split change to give the owners a bigger share? Maybe, but I doubt it. The only thing left the definition of HRR. That, I believe, is the next battle.

Flo The Action wrote:I'm looking back on the fact that people are saying gallager or galchenyuk being part of the World Cup and not stone, I think it's great. Had stone been part of the teams we'd have an uphill battle with teams keeping him on a lookout but this way he fois a little under the radar for another little while. By th olympics he'll be under everyone's radar. For now he can demolish a few teams this year!

I don't think he's flying under the radar anymore. From all indications Hoffman-Turris-Stone will be the Sens' top line this season. Sens were in the top-third of the league in scoring last year, even with Turris playing more than a third of the season on one leg. I am expecting an improved powerplay (with the addition of a left-handed center and a new coaching staff which should keep them in the top-10 teams in goals for (and perhaps move higher). Another 60 point season should be a given, and 65-70 is very likely. If the team improves its defensive play Stone should have a much better +/- than last year which, combined with his takeaways will finally put him into the Selke conversation.

Whoa!

Anze Kopitar mic’d up at #WCH2016, “We fooled them all with the first two games, boys.” https://t.co/twdX03yu21

— Marina Molnar (@mkmolnar) September 18, 2016

Anze Kopitar on the bench during the game against Team USA, saying "We fooled them all with the first two games, boys. We fooled them all."

wprager wrote:

spader wrote:
All those things are the cost of doing business, with the exception of the things you made up. If you work at a grocery store, do you have to pay for building upkeep? The grocery store is a huge expense. Do you really expect the owners to pay for it out of their profits?

Also, you're out to lunch if you think the league pays for their suits. Where do you get that from? I feel like you pulled this whole post out of your  .

There's really no need to get rude, is there?  What I said was that I wouldn't be surprised if they paid for one suit.  NHL hockey players get way more benefits than most "employees".  Nobody I know gets 50% of revenues (not profits, *revenues*).  Partners at law firms share in the profits, but this group of "employees" get 50% of the *revenues*.  It's revenues, man.

Second, they have it built into the CBA that they stay at 5-star hotels.  I can certainly understand business class travel because a lot of them are pretty big guys and the standard seats aren't very accommodating.  But back before they had the Brookstreet hotel, teams used to have to stay downtown because the Holiday Inn Express (which was good enough for Cher when she was here) was only a 4-start hotel.  In a lot of cases they get to their hotel room late at night and stay until after their afternoon nap.  Absolutely no need for this luxury.  Would make a lot more sense to prefer a hotel because of its proximity to the arena or practice facility, rather than the extra star.  And the owners have to pay for this extra expense out of their 50%.

As for arena up-keep, many teams now lease the arena from the city, which pays for it with public funds.  So some owners aren't paying for upkeep (at least not directly).

Bottom line, we *are* heading to another lockout.  The pendulum has swung way too far the other way.  The league is doing well as a whole, but too many teams are struggling.  And the rich owners don't want their profits to be reduced to pay for the weak sisters.  Meanwhile, the NHLPA absolutely wants to have 32 teams in the league as the number of players is hard-limited by this number.  So, you want 32 teams, we want to keep our profits.  The owners did very well for themselves when there were only the Original Six.  The players have benefited from expansion significantly more than (some of the) owners.  

Will the new CBA do 50/50 on profits only?  I doubt that very much.  Will the split change to give the owners a bigger share?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  The only thing left the definition of HRR.  That, I believe, is the next battle.

Not only that, they get paid MILLIONS to "manage" those rinks.

Apparently you can pick up tickets on StubHub for Sweden vs. Russia for $16. Why am I not in Toronto right now???!

wprager wrote:Apparently you can pick up tickets on StubHub for Sweden vs. Russia for $16.  Why am I not in Toronto right now???!

Because it's an overpopulated Dung hole?

SeawaySensFan wrote:

wprager wrote:Apparently you can pick up tickets on StubHub for Sweden vs. Russia for $16.  Why am I not in Toronto right now???!

Because it's an overpopulated Dung hole?

I meant, other than the obvious reasons.

Lundqvist ill, Markstrom will start.